It’s one thing to call the situation “nothing complex”, but there was no solution in this clip.

Usually when people call something complex they mean that the solution is complex.

Okay, let’s shift the goalposts.

The idea that the injustice & domination should continue because there is no clear cut solution is pure evil.

Imagine saying that South African apartheid needs to be maintained because there is no “simple” solution, or that African colonies must continue to be subjugated because the solution to the settler problem is not “simple”.

Regardless, the solution here has been regurgitated endlessly: end the blockade of Gaza, end apartheid in the West Bank, either as one state with equal rights for all, or as two states (with full sovereignty) and right of return extended to all Palestinians and not just to Jews.

> idea that the injustice & domination should continue because there is no clear cut solution is pure evil

It’s prioritisation. There are multiple horrible civil wars, rebellions and displacements happening around the world right now. Every person doesn’t need to have a position on each one; there is an argument that’s counterproductive. (Exhibit A: the Columbia protests.)

Since you brought up the Columbia protests and general dissent inside the US: how many such conflicts and genocides are directly backed and propped up by the US?

> how many such conflicts and genocides are directly backed and propped up by the US?

Fewer than you’d think [1]. (We send aid to Sudan and are practically uninvolved in Myanmar.)

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_confli...

Well, that’s my point. This is the only major ongoing conflict where the US and major Western powers are virtually unconditionally backing the “bad guys”.

So it makes sense that there would be more attention and pushback on this one versus others.

Hmm, thank you. Hadn’t considered that.

(It’s interesting because it requires disentangling anti-American sentiments from the equation.)

How exactly do you suggest that a country like Germany (since Germanys inaction was the topic of this thread) reach those goals? How does Germany end the blockade of Gaza? How does Germany end apartheid in the West Bank?

Just because I can’t do anything to improve the situation does not mean that I am in favour of the status quo. That does not make me evil either.

Are you seriously asking me this question, or is this an attempt at a rhetorical? And why are we shifting the goalposts once again?

How do you think apartheid South Africa ended? How does any country pressure another?

In a supposedly democratic nation like Germany, how would citizens pressure their government to stop supporting & providing diplomatic cover for another to commit a genocide & maintain apartheid?

> Just because I can’t do anything to improve the situation does not mean that I am in favour of the status quo. That does not make me evil either.

It does. The Germans who stood aside when the Nazis rose to power and the soldiers just "executing orders" were as much to blame for the rise of Hitler as the ones supporting it. Not taking a side against evil is taking evil's side. And you of all peoples should have learned from your history. Genocide is bad.

> How does Germany end apartheid in the West Bank?

By applying pressure on the international community to boycott Israel. Same way Germany is applying pressure on the international community to boycott Russia.

The idea that Isreal is occupying the west bank and or Gaza goes back to the 1967 6 day war and has jack all to do with Palestinian borders real or imaginary.

Those lands were the property of Jordan and Egypt...

[flagged]

Can you please stop posting flamewar comments? It's against the site guidelines because it destroys the curious conversation we're trying for. I know that topic is both important and activating, but that makes it more important, not less, to stick to the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Instead, please make your substantive points thoughtfully, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are.

Was the problem with my comment the use of profanity? I did not insult the commenter, nor did I make any ad hominem attacks.

I don’t see any rules against profanity in general, or the use of profanity to respond to an argument. I also took the time to clarify why the argument is “bullshit”. But maybe I am missing something.

Not profanity per se, but if you lead with "Bullshit." then you're already well into aggressive flamewar mode.

"You can try all you want to erase [etc.]" is a form of personal attack. You don't need that.

Got it, I will dial it down a bit then :)